Anthropogenic Climate Change

[downbeatplumb]

Humans are definitely the cause of the warming of the climate.
Given that we introduce vast amounts of carbon dioxide through power plants, cars etc while interrupting the carbon cooling cycle by preventing rivers reaching the sea etc, cutting down vast swathes of forrests, farm methane producing cattle and scatter methane producing rubbish mounds hither and yon then there is no way that the climate could not be affected by our actions.
To claim otherwise is to blind yourself to the reality of he situation, it is akin to the blind denial of evolution despite the overwhelming evidence. Quite often the denial of man made global warming and the denial of evolution go hand in hand.

[Welsh cake]

That is complete bullshit, almost every single meta-analysis on the issue has measurements for solar activity in a variety of forms as well as the earths current aphelion/perihelion and eccentricities.

May I ask for a citation please?

You asserted it, but your argument is full of shit, it amounts to nothing more than "bu...bu..but there might be something going on in the sun!" Show me the data! Oh, wait, it doesn't fucking exist.

That the sun, and not us, is responsible for our weather? Why so disingenuous Void? You shouldn't even have to Wikipedia the painfully obvious fact that energy from its light supports most life on Earth via photosynthesis (as opposed to quoting atrociously inaccurate graph models from said site), but it creates Earth's climate and weather because it heats this planet unevenly.

Are you fucking shitting me? Do you not understand that the strongest correlation is the most likely cause and is thus the cause that we are justified in believing to be true? C02 emissions are EASILY the strongest correlation, thus they are by far the most likely cause.

If you are correct then how do you differentiate between naturally reoccurring weather events and events induced by anthropogenic climate change? How do you define natural weather? How do you distinguish the manmade trend from it?

Because Wales accounts for FUCK ALL of the earth's emissions. Are you now denying that C02 emissions are increasing? You need to go and look at the most rudimentary data if you believe that is the case!

Not according to the Welsh Assembly Government:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6932667.stm
Again, our industry is virtually a skeleton of what it once was, please answer the question.

Also you agree with me then simultaneously disagree with me. If you expect me to change my views please be more consistent and methodical about your responses. Not to mention calming the fuck down and being more civil towards me also wouldn't hurt your cause, since you've taken it upon yourself.

More biases, great! Your financial situation in Wales has absolutely nothing to do with the data.

You've failed miserably to identify I was being facetious there. Did the smiley not tip you off?

Since jesting with you accomplishes nothing, let me close with this - you remain utterly and wholly convinced by your apparent responses that anthropogenic climate change is not only demonstrably real but actually caused primarily, if not entirely, by carbon emissions by us humans. I doubt you are willing to consider other views at this point. If the data present is enough to satisfy your standards of evidence, that's fine, that's your prerogative. I however have observed and taken note of strange reoccurring variations, for example we've had two especially cold winters recently here in the UK, the worst in decades and I cannot help but remain skeptical that mankind is the sole contributor to a gradual climate warming as people claim. I simply don't know. I don't doubt we can't have an impact upon our environment on a local scale VOID, but a significant global scale over a mere few decades is still too much for me to currently accept that extreme view.

That's not to say my position can't change, but currently the evidence available is insufficient to convince me. Now that we've established what I believe is of no fault of your own, kindly calm down VOID, geez.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not being completely disingenuous by deliberately misinterpreting what I said to score cheap points.

"~" If you actually GAVE me the benefit of the doubt why even address how you interpreted my post in the first instance?

My point was, that there is no such thing as an absolute fact in science. All you can say is how likely something is to be true in probabilistic terms given the sum of the available data.

You, not me, made the broad-faced assertion that AGW is indisputable, you yourself said there's really nothing I can argue against with, which is simply not true, there is a dispute and controversy surrounding the issue and in any case scientific methodology doesn't work this way.

The only way you can manipulate statistics is by cherry-picking the data. That's known in science as research fraud. And it can be tested for using forensic statistics considering things such as Benford's Law.

I'm not accusing anyone of fraud, I'm simply stating statistics are beneficial to support a hypothesis, but under no circumstances should we allow ourselves to accept any view where statistical correlations conclusively prove direct cause and effect, that is fallacious is it not? Will you grant me that?

That's bordering on irrelevant. I accepted that the sun dictates the earth's received energy flux. I stated that directly in the quote.

I realise that now, apologies, although you'll appreciate you can't logically have said effect without its necessary cause.

Please don't misuse the term open-mindedness. It doesn't mean being treating all ideas as equally likely to be true, it means being willing to alter one's beliefs upon the presentation of evidence contrary to a currently held belief.

I never said it did.

You have been asked several times by myself and theVOID to present evidence; thus far you have not done so.

We've established the Sun is responsible for Earth's climate, so what are you asking for now? Evidence for arguing a negative? Kindly oblige to make your case first. Please quit shifting the burden of proof and demonstrate the truth of your assertion behind AGW.

Take for example, the things you were saying a few posts back which were refuted.

???

That is simply not true.

Nevertheless, they've come up with a hypothesis and are now seeking evidence to support it, its pretty much what you're doing right now. That's not how we go about investigating observable phenomena within reality.

Sure, but once again, you're misapplying the principle.

What do you mean? I concur with everything else you go on to state after this, but this opening statement doesn't make sense. I was simply pointing out the obvious logical fallacy.

[Sam]

May I ask for a citation please?

I'd probably start with the synthesis report from the IPCC's 4th Assesment. Then look at the primary models in Working Group 1 of the main report (AR4). You'll find they outline the modelling approach there and do take into account the effect of changes in the radiative forcing from the sun.

If you're not satisfied with that you'll find the references to the primary peer-reviewed litearture for each modelling approach in the reference section.

I'm slightly surprised by your position here, in that most people (skeptics included) agree that changes in solar radiative forcing simply cannot account for the observed changes in the climate system over the last few hundred years. Most skeptics base their objections around uncertainties in climate feedbacks (specifically the cloud albedo feedback). Obviously that is in no way a solid argument but I mention it only because your position is slightly unusual.

If you are correct then how do you differentiate between naturally reoccurring weather events and events induced by anthropogenic climate change? How do you define natural weather? How do you distinguish the manmade trend from it?

In climate science, especially climate change studies we tend to see a focus on changing trends, in mean global Co2 Concentration and Mean global temperature for example. We analyse how these trend change over time and in relation to one another. I'm not sure why you would expect us to try and differentiate between 'natural' weather and 'anthropogenic' weather given that the argument is we are affecting the whole climate system as opposed to particular events.

Not according to the Welsh Assembly Government:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6932667.stm
Again, our industry is virtually a skeleton of what it once was, please answer the question.

The artcile clearly states that Welsh Co2 emmisions are the highest in the U.K. per person. Icleand for instance is globally one of the lowest Co2 contributing countries but per capita it's one of the highest.

Cheers

Sam

[lilphil1989]

you remain utterly and wholly convinced by your apparent responses that anthropogenic climate change is not only demonstrably real but actually caused primarily, if not entirely, by carbon emissions by us humans.

anthrpogenic warming is caused primarily by carbon emissions, yes. Although we are not claiming that carbon emissions are the only factor driving the increase in global average temperature.

My point was, that there is no such thing as an absolute fact in science. All you can say is how likely something is to be true in probabilistic terms given the sum of the available data.

You, not me, made the broad-faced assertion that AGW is indisputable, you yourself said there's really nothing I can argue against with, which is simply not true, there is a dispute and controversy surrounding the issue and in any case scientific methodology doesn't work this way.

I said that the basic science is inarguable, not that AGW is indisputable.

I'm not accusing anyone of fraud, I'm simply stating statistics are beneficial to support a hypothesis, but under no circumstances should we allow ourselves to accept any view where statistical correlations conclusively prove direct cause and effect, that is fallacious is it not? Will you grant me that?

I won't grant you that, no. Observing correlations is the only way you can determine causation.
Of course, causation is more likely given data with greater statistical significance, and even better if you have a model which predicts the correlation, and best of all if it predicts the quantitative form of the correlation, but at the heart of the scientific method is the observation of correlations.

We've established the Sun is responsible for Earth's climate, so what are you asking for now? Evidence for arguing a negative?

We've established that the sun is responsible for the incoming energy flux. Your statement would be true if it were amended:
"The sun is at least partially responsible for Earth's climate"
and no-one is disputing that. But to claim that it's the only factor is far too simplistic, and as theVOID pointed out, if you take into account only variations in solar output, climate models don't even come close to reproducing the data.

As for evidence, you claimed that climate scientists ignore solar forcing. A few recent papers or reviews in the literature which (in context) fail to take into account or make reference to solar forcing would be adequate evidence for this claim.

Please quit shifting the burden of proof and demonstrate the truth of your assertion behind AGW.

The most accessible and emcompassing reviews of the evidence are those by the IPCC. Given the snide comments you've made regarding the IPCC, it seems futile to even offer the evidence.

Nevertheless, they've come up with a hypothesis and are now seeking evidence to support it, its pretty much what you're doing right now. That's not how we go about investigating observable phenomena within reality.

Yes, it is. You gather data, make a hypothesis, then gather more data to see whether or not it fits the predictions of your hypothesis. If it does, great, your hypothesis is now better supported by the evidence, go look for more.
If not, you refine or adjust the hypothesis, or throw it out and look for another.

There is a distinction between a conclusion and an evidence-supported hypothesis. Seeking evidence to support a conclusion is of course fallacious. Seeking evidence to further support or refute a hypothesis is not; in fact, it is the only way you can make a judgement about it.

What do you mean? I concur with everything else you go on to state after this, but this opening statement doesn't make sense. I was simply pointing out the obvious logical fallacy.

When you're presented with evidence that is statistically significant in the context of some hypothesis, it's not enough to simply say "correlation does not imply causation".
You can say that about any scientific claim, that doesn't mean you've adequately refuted, or demonstrated that the evidence does not support the claim.



You seem to think that an absolute claim is being made. Rather, a scientific claim is being made. That is that, at present, the evidence supports the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. But like all scientific claims, it is probabilistic rather than absolute, and it will be subject to review in light of new evidence.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Cardinal Pell has spoken! George Pell is Australia's senior Catholic cleric and protector of pedophile priests. He is also one of the few Aussies to have been born without an irony meter.

Taken from Atheist Foundation Of Australia Forum:

Pell row with climate scientist heats up
Leesha McKenny RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS
March 14, 2011

CARDINAL GEORGE PELL has rebuffed the head of the Bureau of Meteorology, who had said Australia's highest-ranking Catholic was ''misled'' in his views on global warming.

Dr Greg Ayers told a Senate estimates hearing last month that the Archbishop of Sydney's argument against human-induced climate change was based heavily on a book by Ian Plimer, Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science, which had been discredited by scientists.

''The contents of the book are simply not scientific. I am concerned that the cardinal has been misled [by its contents],'' the director of the bureau said.

But Cardinal Pell told the Herald the statements by Dr Ayers, an atmospheric scientist, were themselves unscientific. ''Ayers, when he spoke to the House, was obviously a hot-air specialist. I've rarely heard such an unscientific contribution.''

The cleric, who has questioned global warming in his Sunday newspaper column, even likened himself to the federal government's climate adviser Ross Garnaut when he expressed disappointment last week that the public debate on climate change was often divorced from scientific quality, rigour and authority.

''I regret when a discussion of these things is not based on scientific fact,'' Cardinal Pell said. ''I spend a lot of time studying this stuff.''

But Professor Garnaut had also said he was more certain the mainstream science supporting global warming was sound, and there was no ''genuine'' scientific dissent.

Cardinal Pell argued against human-induced global warming in a written submission to the hearing, claiming increases in carbon dioxide tended to follow rises in temperature, not cause them. He also stated, based on Professor Plimer's book, that temperatures were higher in Roman times and the Middle Ages.

Dr Ayers, a former CSIRO marine and atmospheric research chief who holds a doctorate in physical chemistry from Monash University, told the hearing Professor Plimer's book had not been peer reviewed and many of his assertions were not supported by scientific evidence.

He also cited one example in the cardinal's submission that referred to nitrogen in a list of greenhouse gases.

''That is not a greenhouse gas; it is 78 per cent of the atmosphere. You cannot have people out there telling the public that nitrogen is a greenhouse gas because it is not,'' he told the hearing.

Cardinal Pell told the Herald statements by Dr Ayers to the hearing were ''all abuse and waffle about poor old Plimer'', before defending the geologist as a man who ''deals in many, many facts''. But he was prepared to meet leading climate scientists to discuss the issue, he said.

Dr Ayers told the hearing the cardinal ''may well become an ambassador for the quality of climate change science if he is exposed to the quality of the science that is done'' in Australia.

Cardinal Pell made his comments to the Herald after a public lecture by the Vatican's highest judicial officer, Cardinal Raymond Burke, entitled ''The Fall of the Christian West'' in Sydney on Friday night.

Cardinal Pell had earlier told the 200-strong crowd about the value of the ''years of study and professional devotion'' undertaken by Sir Thomas More, who was executed for treason in 1535. "There's no substitute for knowing what you're talking about,'' he said.

A Bureau of Meteorology spokeswoman said Dr Ayers was unavailable for comment yesterday.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...313-1bsx6.html

[Minimalist]

What ? Did he take time off from sodomizing little boys???

[Anomalocaris]

What ? Did he take time off from sodomizing little boys???

In his defense, sodomy occurs in the bible, while anthropogenic climate change does not.

[binny]

I also do, but I do not think it is solely cause by such. Methane has quite the role in this.

Those damn farting cows!

[Minimalist]

What ? Did he take time off from sodomizing little boys???

In his defense, sodomy occurs in the bible, while anthropogenic climate change does not.

Somehow.....I just don't find that an acceptable defense.

[Welsh cake]

I'd probably start with the synthesis report from the IPCC's 4th Assesment.

IPCC don't carry out their own original research. You can discount them and anything they claim to "contribute" to AGW.

If you're not satisfied with that you'll find the references to the primary peer-reviewed litearture for each modelling approach in the reference section.

Can you provide me some links please?

In climate science, especially climate change studies we tend to see a focus on changing trends, in mean global Co2 Concentration and Mean global temperature for example. We analyse how these trend change over time and in relation to one another. I'm not sure why you would expect us to try and differentiate between 'natural' weather and 'anthropogenic' weather given that the argument is we are affecting the whole climate system as opposed to particular events.

Okay, let me rephrase the question again then, how do you differentiate between a natural climate trend and a trend induced by anthropogenic climate change?

I'm not asking for indisputable evidence that we are actually affecting our climate because all that seems to be on offer is a few skewed graphs and the assertions of governmental department cronies looking to place new legislation and so-called green taxes on an already failing industry.

I'm asking you to falsify AGW. If you can't then there's nothing to debate - climate change is dead.

The artcile clearly states that Welsh Co2 emmisions are the highest in the U.K. per person. Icleand for instance is globally one of the lowest Co2 contributing countries but per capita it's one of the highest.

Per person? How did they work that out? Aren't there more sheep than people in Wales?

I said that the basic science is inarguable, not that AGW is indisputable.

No, what you said was:-

When it comes to the basic science of AGW, there's really nothing you can argue against.

I won't grant you that, no. Observing correlations is the only way you can determine causation.

So you're arguing correlation proves causation, in spite of the fact that you're committing a logical fallacy?

We've established that the sun is responsible for the incoming energy flux. Your statement would be true if it were amended:
"The sun is at least partially responsible for Earth's climate"

No, "partially responsible" couldn't be further more the truth. What else is the driving force behind our weather climate if it's not our planet's own parent star? It's certainly not going to be Proxima Centauri now it is?

As for evidence, you claimed that climate scientists ignore solar forcing. A few recent papers or reviews in the literature which (in context) fail to take into account or make reference to solar forcing would be adequate evidence for this claim.

I've yet to see any proponent of AGW here actually link me to one of these peer-reviewed papers or journals. Perhaps you will be the first?

The most accessible and emcompassing reviews of the evidence are those by the IPCC. Given the snide comments you've made regarding the IPCC, it seems futile to even offer the evidence.

Seriously, cut out your nonsense with allegations of me being underhanded. And with all due respect the IPCC can take their tax-payers' millions and fuck off*. They don't carry out any original research. They don't help your argument in any way. They don't even monitor climate related data or parameters.

*Actually, I think the US Government are basically telling them to "fuck off" by stopping their funding:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/...g-of-ipcc/

When you're presented with evidence that is statistically significant in the context of some hypothesis, it's not enough to simply say "correlation does not imply causation".
You can say that about any scientific claim, that doesn't mean you've adequately refuted, or demonstrated that the evidence does not support the claim.

Yes but there's more than one type of empirical and scientific evidence that would satisfy my standards, not just statistical analysis, because while providing some benefits in experiments how we interpret the data in the end, or lack of, may not actually be what is demonstrably occurring within reality.